news.bbc.co.uk— Microsoft overturns a ban on selling its flagship word-processing software Word 2003 and 2005 following a patent dispute.
Sep 4, 2009View in Crawl 4
Read <a class="user" href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10308374-56.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10308374-56.html</a> and you'll see that i4i is a smaller software company that does work for some big clients. Because they are smaller is no reason reason to accuse them of being some kind of patent-troll. Because they aren't Microsoft means they can't have patented something that they thought was unique before MS thought of or 'needed' it? Again. Software patents are wrong. They are stupid. Software is sufficiently protected by copyright. However, this does not mean every patent-holder is an evil patent troll just because they are exercising their rights under law. Did they BUY the patent? Don't think so.I do get a smile out of the idea that this thing is thrusting the problems with patents and software into a more prominent position in the public eye.
This is absolutely correct. If you copyright a creative work and someone takes it and sells it, they are perfectly within their rights to do so...but they have to pay you.
No no, come to california. We're f**king retarded as s**t in our courts. Think of all the major cases we've f**ked up and I'm not just talking about OJ.
Riiiiiight.......so these people have a patent on using XML. To encode documents.Awesome. I'll just go ahead and file my patent for a process of cooking food by way of total immersion in temperature-excited dihydrogen monoxide.
alphabetSep 5, 2009
you're dugg down because you didn't bother to explain why you think it's a bogus patent.
depro9Sep 5, 2009
You don't have to tell me twice!!
imricSep 5, 2009
Read <a class="user" href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10308374-56.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10308374-56.html</a> and you'll see that i4i is a smaller software company that does work for some big clients. Because they are smaller is no reason reason to accuse them of being some kind of patent-troll. Because they aren't Microsoft means they can't have patented something that they thought was unique before MS thought of or 'needed' it? Again. Software patents are wrong. They are stupid. Software is sufficiently protected by copyright. However, this does not mean every patent-holder is an evil patent troll just because they are exercising their rights under law. Did they BUY the patent? Don't think so.I do get a smile out of the idea that this thing is thrusting the problems with patents and software into a more prominent position in the public eye.
hermmunsterSep 5, 2009
Your brother-in-law isn't the sharpest mind is he? Cases before juries in East Texas have suits on both sides of the issue.
Closed AccountSep 5, 2009
Write letterz n s**t, yo.
tarkaanSep 6, 2009
This is absolutely correct. If you copyright a creative work and someone takes it and sells it, they are perfectly within their rights to do so...but they have to pay you.
dotcommerSep 7, 2009
No no, come to california. We're f**king retarded as s**t in our courts. Think of all the major cases we've f**ked up and I'm not just talking about OJ.
caramba421Sep 23, 2009
Riiiiiight.......so these people have a patent on using XML. To encode documents.Awesome. I'll just go ahead and file my patent for a process of cooking food by way of total immersion in temperature-excited dihydrogen monoxide.
mathcreativeNov 30, 2009
@Kajarago sry wayyy to obvious